Present Day America

I'm concerned. I'm really worried about America today. Particularly, I am concerned as a young American.

I'm a registered Republican, but I will not, in 2006 or 2008 vote for a Republican leadership. I've been let down by this administration and the proposed platform of the party at this particular era. More so, I've been let down by the mindset of the conservatives who seem to dominate the political forefront and media outlets. Case in point, Ann Coulter. Crazy woman. Then there are those self-appointed "political-theologians" who wish nothing more than to combine both politics and God into the same speech. Grant it, I have no objection to an individual confessing their love, dedication, and admiration to God (Christ, Yahweh, or Allah), but remember one of the Bill of Rights: "Freedom of religion & religious expression." Thus, there is implicit within this amendment the understanding that a person should not be subjected to the religous implications of a political leader elected to a public, secular office. Even more worrisome is the application of the Vatican to all present forms of Christianity to act as the moral compas for all those who declare themselves to be Christian.

Case in point: http://www.republicanvoices.org/homowrong.html

As a Catholic theologian, I am concerned by this author's application of a Pauline letter, a Mosaic law, and subsequent "Vatican sources," of which he conveniently neglects to state his sources.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the basic guide for all practicing Catholics, outlines the following (and I apologize for its length and articulate detail):

PART TWO
THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY

SECTION TWO
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER THREE
THE SACRAMENTS AT THE SERVICE OF COMMUNION

ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

I. MARRIAGE IN GOD'S PLAN

1602: Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of "the wedding-feast of the Lamb."85 Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its "mystery," its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of salvation, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal "in the Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church. [86]

Marriage in the order of creation

1603: "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage." [87] The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, [88] some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."[89]

1604: God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. [90] Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"[91]

1605: Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." [92] The woman, "flesh of his flesh," his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. [93] "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." [94] The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "in the beginning": "So they are no longer two, but one flesh." [95]

----[The numbers indicated above (1602, etc.) indicate the paragraph numbers for the Catechism]

Yes, there is a clear indication from this particular document that marriage is intended to be between a man and woman. This development of theology and philosophical though develops out of the creation narrative found in Genesis. Though, Genesis neglects to place one thing: the basic need for human companionship. The basic brotherhood or sisterhood that can be formed between a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

It is Aristotle who points to three types of friendship: one of usefulness, one of pleasure, and one of good. The first two, he explains, is about "me." It is focusing on what "me," the sole individual within the friendship gains, and that's it. But the third friendship, he explains, is that of pure unadulterated goodness. The form of goodness, in antiquity, can best be described as 'admirable love;' yes, even between people of the same sex. If we carry this through*, one can parallel this argument for what a marriage is and what a sacramental marriage is within the Catholic Church; this is the issue that is at hand between those of the Catholic Church and the American government.

What is problematic for Catholics, then, is not necessarily the union in pure goodness with a person of the same sex; rather, it is a prolem with the ruimentary Catholic understanding of what a marriage is intended to create. Life. Marriage is not for pleasure, usefulness, or a sexual act that, in fact, is encouraged only within a Catholic sacramental marriage (though, I am in no way excluding other Christian denominations and their understanding of marriage). Marriage is, however, for the primary purpose of procreation; adding to God's creation. That's it. The secondary purpose of marriage, one may then say, is for the pure 'goodness,' friendship, and pleasure (not merely sexual) that can develop out of this.

What is frustrating, is for the aforementioned Republican author, via his website, communicating a message of homosexuality as being wrong, when he neglects to comment on issues of adultry, lust, greed, envy, factions, dissension, all of which Paul includes within his letters as well. It is frustrating as there is no commentary from this particular author regarding the state of America in regards to those particular aspect. Nor does he comment about the rising divorce rate in America; a subject that not only the Pauline letters discuss, but Christ Jesus himself argues against. In 1993, the divorce rate of America circled around 40% of all marriages ending in divorce. Since then, the rate has grown steadily toward 50%. This speaks volumes to me as a young American that our media outlets and politicians have done nothing to curtail the home-life that once was envied by others throughout the world. Instead, we have allowed families to fall to the wayside, where families communicate via cell phone to convey dinner time, if they are so fortunate to eat together as a family unit. And no, there is no conclusive psychological or sociological explanation as to homosexual relations being the primary cause behind the 'erosion' of the family unit.

The Democratic Senator from Minnesota the other day had it right when he mentioned that giving a Bible to a politician was like giving a match to a pyromaniac. The results do not always turn out positive. In this case, I believe he is right. Feeding information via the Bible and politics does not bode well for the personification of "freedom of religion and freedom of religious practice."

As a straight male, Catholic theologian, who has had a healthy relationship over the past three and a half years, I do NOT reject the idea of the United States Senate and the U.S. President calling for a national ban on homosexual marriage; though, I do not embrace it. Rather, I believe the language needs to be changed for clarification purposes. As I have attempted to outline, marriage is instituted in the creation narratives found within Judaism and Christianity (as well as Islam and other non-Christian religions), articulates the call for a man and a woman to be unified in marriage. I do NOT reject the idea of the United States government providing an amendment for homosexual civil unions or partnerships, whatever non-religious language is employed, so that those of that particular sexual orientation may live together and recieve the same tax and government benefits that married men and women recieve.

The Catholic Church will remain steadfast in its understanding of what marriage is: a bond of admirable friendship and goodness between a loving woman and man, which intends to produce offspring (if biologically, socially, and economically possible). The Catholic Church will not identify a homosexual relationship in the same sacramental manner, as it cannot produce a child. The Catholic Church, subsequently, has no place in the governing of the United States of America. It has no place in governing any sovereign nation. The Catholic Church in previous documents, including its Catechism, states clearly that nations are to govern unto themselves. The Pauline letters, further, argue that a person is subject not only to the laws of God, but also to the laws of the state, insofar as they do not interfere with a persons regular religious practice. Therefore, the application of Vatican documents and/or Christian scripture in the name of the Catholic Church, is therefore faulty, false, inaccurate, unacceptable, and idiotic.

Let the government create an amendment that allows for men and men or women and women to be bound in a union of good friendship, admirable love, and mutual agreement with one another. But do not allow the government to infuse its conservative Christian values into yet another issue as to overcloud the issues that America really faces. Let's bring our troops home and love them. Let's start caring more for the poor and the socially oppressed. Let's start providing for those who are losing jobs to foreign companies. Let's start caring for the single mother of three who can hardly pay for groceries, because she needs her paycheck to pay for gas to get to work. Let's start caring for the everyday Americans, all of whom are part of God's grand creation.

----
*Lawler, Michael. Marriage and Sacrament: A Theology of Christian Marriage. The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, MN; 1993.

----
For more on the Catholic Church's OFFICIAL stance on homosexual persons and 'legal unions,' refer to the 2003 document

"Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formally headed by the now, Pope Benedict XVI):

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

**It is important, however, that one read carefully the language inclusive within the document. The document specifically treats the homosexual act as being wrong. The Church, clearly, in this document and others, does NOT reject the persons who are homosexual.**